- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12383 CRL.RP No. 100050 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100050 OF 2024 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: BHUSHAN S/O VASANT BANGODI, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.467, TEGGIN GALLI, M. VADAGAON, BELAGAVI-590 005. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHETANA S. BIRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: YUSUF IMAMHUSSAIN MULLA, AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. G-29, SWAROOP PLAZE, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590 006. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 13.10.2023 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.219/2023 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI BY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION PASSED BY THE VII JMFC, BELAGAVI, IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.260/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NI ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12383 CRL.RP No. 100050 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. The accused has filed this Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in C.C. No.260 of 2018 by the Court of VII-JMFC, Belagavi dated 04.07.2023 and the judgment and order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Court of IV-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Criminal Appeal No.219 of 2023. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The respondent herein had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the Court of VII-JMFC, Belagavi. In the said proceedings, the petitioner had claimed to be tried and therefore to substantiate his case, respondent had examined himself as PW1 and had got marked 5 documents as Exhibits P1 to P5. On behalf of the defence, no witness - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12383 CRL.RP No. 100050 of 2024 was examined nor was any documents got marked. The trial Court, after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, by the impugned judgment and order dated 04.07.2023, convicted the petitioner in C.C. No.260 of 2018, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to pay fine of ₹.7,60,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The said judgment and order of conviction was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.219 of 2013 by the Court of IV-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, by its Judgment and order dated 13.10.2023. However, the order of sentence passed by the trial Court was modified and in lieu the petitioner was sentenced to pay fine of ₹.6,00,000/- and in default he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below, the petitioner is before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12383 CRL.RP No. 100050 of 2024 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the trial Court was not justified in convicting the petitioner for alleged offence. The cheque in question is for a sum of ₹.3,00,000/-. The petitioner has already deposited a sum of ₹.3,00,000/- before the trial Court and a further sum of ₹.50,000/- was deposited before this Court in view of the proposal given by the respondent for settlement. He submits that therefore leniency may be shown while sentencing the petitioner for the alleged offence. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order and submits that the cheque in question is of the year 2014 and therefore no leniency can be shown against the petitioner. He submits that the Courts below, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence have rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the alleged offence. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12383 CRL.RP No. 100050 of 2024 6. The respondent who is examined as PW1 in the present case, has deposed before the trial Court reiterating the averments found in the complaint. He has stated that in the month of December-2023, the petitioner had availed hand loan of ₹.3,00,000/- from him and towards repayment of the said amount, the cheque in question bearing No.463618 dated 23.05.2014, for a sum of ₹.3,00,000/- was issued in his favour drawn on SBI Bank, Shahapur Branch, Belagavi. Since the said cheque was dishonoured by the drawee bank, after complying the statutory requirements, he had filed a private complaint against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 7. The material on record would go to show that the signature found in the cheque in question is not in dispute nor it has been disputed by the petitioner that the cheque drawn was from his bank account maintained in SBI Bank, Shahapur Branch, Belagavi. Therefore, a presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act arises against the petitioner and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12383 CRL.RP No. 100050 of 2024 unless he rebuts the same by producing necessary oral and documentary evidence, he is liable to be punished for alleged offence. The petitioner has not led any defence evidence nor got marked any document in support of his defence before the trial Court. In the case on hand, the petitioner had failed to rebut the presumption that arose against him and therefore, the trial Court was justified in convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 8. However, considering the fact that during the pendency of the proceedings, petitioner had deposited the entire cheque amount of ₹.3,00,000/- before the trial Court and in view of the proposal given for settlement, a further amount of ₹.50,000/- was deposited by the petitioner before this Court in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 24.04.2025, I am of the opinion that some leniency is required to be shown while passing the order of sentence against the petitioner. Accordingly, the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12383 CRL.RP No. 100050 of 2024 ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed. (ii) The judgment and order of conviction passed by the Courts below, convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are confirmed. (iii) The order of sentence passed by the Courts below is modified and the petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of ₹.4,10,000/- and in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Out of the fine amount, a sum of ₹.4,00,000/- is directed to be paid to the respondent-complainant as compensation under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount of ₹.10,000/- shall be paid to the State towards litigation expenses. (iv) The amount deposited by the petitioner before the trial Court as well as before this Court is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE VNP / CT: BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 104